There has always been global warming followed by an ice age.
True as far as it goes, but "Nite doc" has neglected to mention some crucial points.
The global warming / climate change we're seeing in the last 100 or so years is MUCH different from anything measured in the glacial & sea sediment records covering the last 800,000 years. CO2 is rising 100x faster, and temps 10x faster.
"How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?" https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
How is today's CO2 increase different? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."
Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here's 800,000 years of climate data, covering about 7 ice ages. The data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from lake & sea floor sediments. https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores CO2 & methane & temp data
Here's where the various data sets were collected:
The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.
@ElwoodBlues True, but my point is that the majority of climate scientists are barely getting by, funding wise; they're hardly being "bought off" unlike the tiny minority of suspiciously well-funded climate scientists who deny observable reality with cherry picked, irrelevant, and/or outright fraudulent data.
